Issue 29: KH has suggested prose, EM added one sentence explaining the circumstances under which you might want to do this. We all agree that he can make this change without further scrutiny by the workgroup.

Issue 30: - <milestone/> at <div> boundaries - PG suggests that Paul’s comments are on a different issue: <pb>s deeper inside nested structures. What about multiple blank pages, multiple blank pages in a row? PG points out that these seem to belong to the previous <div>. KH thinks that we need to phrase the following more properly: <pb> and other milestone elements should be nested inside the deepest possible <div>. MM suggests that we make it explicit that this recommendation is based on processing constraints, so if you don’t care about them, then you can ignore it, but that whatever choice is made should be indicated in the <encodingDecl>. KH read existing language (which addresses needs of indexing software) and proposed new language. Workgroup agreed to it. KH will create a new issue and implement if no objections raised. Workgroup agreed that we should have similar language for milestones (what issue 30 was originally about). KH will note in the issue and implement if no objections are raised.

Paul’s comment about <pb> in footnotes. Discussion so far: we recommend marking <pb> in notes. We could have further discussions and instructions about edge cases - e.g. notes that start on a page different from the attachment page. Action on KH to create a new issue for this.

MM raised question of encoding the siglum of a note as content of a <ref> element or as an attribute value on a <ptr/> or empty <ref>. TEI Guidelines seem to recommend replacing the siglum with a note and indicating the siglum in an attribute value @anchored or @n. MM will research and write up a summary to share with the WG. The WG may decide to post a query to the list for comment at that point.

Read and comment on the minutes by 4/6. Action on everyone. EM to post on wiki